I’m relieved to see that justice prevailed yesterday, and that Vincent Tabak’s ‘defence’ or ‘explanation’ that he hadn’t intended to kill Joanna Yeates but had simply panicked when he ‘misread’ her signals, and put his hands around her throat to stop her screaming, was given the short shrift that it deserved.

I’m disappointed to hear it was a majority verdict of 10:2 rather than a unanimous verdict from the jury mind, but there you go.

What has really pissed me off though, is the news that Tabak had a particular liking for violent strangulation porn.
That numerous films etc depicting this had been found on his computer, and that there was some evidence he’d watched them a number of times – i.e. they weren’t on his computer through some kind of mysterious downloading accident.

And that the judge decided this information was not relevant to the case, or at least, that telling the jury about it would have been prejudicial to Tabak getting a fair hearing.

“Mr Justice Field, the trial judge, accepted that the viewing of pornography showing violence or a threat of violence was “reprehensible”. But he did not allow the jury to hear the evidence because he felt its value in explaining why Tabak acted as he did could not outweigh the prejudice it would cause his defence.

He also turned down the prosecution’s suggestion that the evidence about escort agencies should go before the jury to correct the impression Tabak gave of being sexually naive and in a loving, monogamous relationship. The jury was left ignorant of what the police believed was important evidence.“

I mean seriously?

Understandably this information has sparked quite considerable debate on Twitter, but it’s difficult to fit everything people have to say about this into Twitter’s character limit, so I thought I’d give people some space to vent/discuss the issue here.

So, your thoughts please: do you think the jury should have been told about Tabak’s liking for violent misogynist porn?

Do you think a liking for violent misogynist porn is relevant evidence in a murder/sex crime case such as this?

Or do you think Mr Justice Field was right, and that to admit such evidence would have been prejudicial?

Reader comments

The evidence might be prejudicial, but it was created by the defendant himself, it it is not obviously irrelevant and he would have been given a fair chance to explain everything.
On the other hand, what’s the connection to the homicide? Many people watch silly porn (not me!) without ever killing somebody, and many others kill without ever having watched porn.

In the end, it might have been a tactical decision by the judge: If you don’t allow the evidence and you still get a conviction, the CPS won’t appeal and you remove one possible reason for an appeal by the defence.

It was absolutely the right decision. Looking at violent porn proves nothing more that the viewer likes looking at violent porn, not that they killed someone. The judge probably didn’t want another Barry George case on his hands.

I have been involved in the defence of otherwise law-abiding individuals who possess violent porn, and defend people’s right to possess images of any kind so long as they are produced consensually. But in this case, I am not sure the bar on evidence was necessary or in the best interests of justice. He already admitted killing Yeates, so the question for the jury then became one about motivation for the crime. I think those images become relevant at that point. It was perfectly legitimate for the prosecution to show that this was a sexually motivated murder rather than a “panic” manslaughter.

A parallel: usually whether someone is in possession of the copy of the Quran is neither here nor there when they are charged with committing a violent act. The question is whether they committed the violent act. But if the violent act is already admitted, and the question is now over what the motivation for the violent act was, then the Quran might turn out to be relevant if the prosecution is trying to claim that there was a political/religious motivation.

He already admitted killing Yeates, so the question for the jury then became one about motivation for the crime. I think those images become relevant at that point.

Exactly. I think if it had been a case of the jury having to decide whether Tabak was guilty of killing Joanna Yeates or not, then the argument re the porn stuff being prejudicial would have been pretty compelling. However, in this instance the jury was having to decide between manslaughter and murder, between whether this was a spur of the moment panicked ‘accident’ if you like, or whether there was some kind of intent behind his actions. I think the nature of the porn Tabak was into, and the fact that Yeates’s body was posed in a way that resembled one of the images from the porn he had accessed, is damning evidence re intent.

What I also don’t get is why evidence was allowed which enabled Tabak to paint himself as some kind of naive sexually inexperienced young man, and yet the evidence that proved this was a lie was disallowed.

In that he is still alive and she is dead, I cannot see much justice has been done for her or her family, who have made it clear that they feel the death penalty would have been appropriate.
I am slightly nervous about using someone`s fantasy life as evidence. Cath Elliot , being a lefty, probably fantasises exclusively about an egalitarian relationship in which two mates who happen to have different bits form sort of community for a reasonable amount of fairly distributed gratification.

For others the thrill of the illicit may take all sorts of forms…not me obviously , its all normal and healthy. I `m just worried about other people …..

“Imagine if Tabak had been acquitted of murder and then it came out that the judge had blocked this evidence.”

There is also the factor that some people who have read in the press about a judge not allowing this evidence may find themselves on a jury next week. They may well wonder what evidence a judge has failed to allow, and make decisions based upon whether they think they are not being told things that are relevant. I think if you have a jury system then you must trust in that system. Allow the evidence, and allow the defence the chance to explain why it isn’t relevant, and then let the jury decide.

I tend to agree with Nick on this case: however, there is a very balanced and useful article on the website ‘Law and Lawyers’ which discusses admissability of evidence in context of this case and previous guidance to judges.

So, your thoughts please: do you think the jury should have been told about Tabak’s liking for violent misogynist porn?

Should I rise to the bait of a loaded question? Might as well…

1 – It depends on whether you want to secure a conviction for murder based on evidence, rather than on the basis that Tabak was guilty on the grounds of liking porn (of whatever kind).

2 – It depends on whether you view BDSM as a legitimate sexual practice. Moreover, it further depends on understanding that ‘safe, sane and consensual BDSM is not abuse. And furthermore, it also depends on recognising that ‘edge play’ such as strangulation is extremely dangerous, even for experienced players. In other words, it depends on accepting that people can tell the difference between getting/feeling aroused via porn, having (kinky) sex with another consenting adult, and killing someone.

3 – It depends on whether you are an anti-porn or pro-sex feminist.

4 – It depends on whether you think the police or a judge gets to deem what is ‘important evidence’.

5 – It depends on the court case.

In short, it depends on whether you Cath Elliott, me, a judge or someone else. For what it’s worth I never thought Tabak would be able to pull a defence of manslaughter. Finding out that he watched porn just made me think that we’d end up having another round of ‘Porn is evil!’ / ‘No it isn’t!’, despite the fact the ‘Extreme Pornography’ legislation now exists to prosecute individuals for looking at possessing the kind of material Tabak apparently looked at.

This is a difficult question and would guess that there is no clear ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ solution, but wouldn’t bringing the porn into the equation suggest that it was somehow responsible (entirely or partly) for the murder?
As others have pointed-out, there are people who watch violent porn but do not go on to re-enact what they have seen.

I think the nature of the porn Tabak was into, and the fact that Yeates’s body was posed in a way that resembled one of the images from the porn he had accessed, is damning evidence re intent.

Damming evidence along the lines of ‘That movie warped my fragile little mind’ or that he found the imagery from a particular piece of porn rather than, say, a classical painting (which is full of nude and/or dead women)?

Yes I think the information should have been given to the jury given that it was clearly solid evidence of a fascination with the precise act that he carried out. If the jury had not found him guilty a murderer with an appetite with sexual violence towards women would not have been properly charged. Imagine how ghat would make the victims family feel … And kmagine how the jury would feel if they had believed him. Makes me do cross that whilst those who were involved in the riots and claiming benefits will have additional punishments, yet comparitively, Taback, a “well to do” middle class man was given a particularly lenient trial and his crimes were arguably far more sinister and disturbing.bloody ridiculous in my books. What was the judge thinking?

No. He wasnt on trial for liking porn he was on trial for murder. Ok it was violent mysoginist porn but the prosecution would still have to prove more than the fact he had seen it they would have to prove it influenced him. Going down that route risks making it look that the case was built on innuendo and suggestion rather than cold hard facts, and that would leave the door open for an appeal . Sounds like the judge made a wise decision.

No he wasn’t on trial for liking porn, but the type of thing he watched clearly showed that his act in strangling her was not accidental whilst he was trying to keep her quiet and perhaps even pre – meditated. Bloody ridiculous, further more, so is the type of thing he was watching, which inexcusably connects violence towards women with sexual enjoyment. How revolting.

At something of a tangent, am I right in thinking if we did still have the death penalty, as Joanna Yeates’ parents and others wish, Tabak would now be a free man – Capital crimes requiring unanimous verdict and 2 jurors finding him innocent?

Interesting question. Possessing violent porn shouldn’t be a crime as such, any more than possessing a load of Nazi literature, films, regalia etc shouldn’t be a crime as such, though it should be a reason for people thinking you are a nasty, dpdgy creep. But if such a possessor was had up for eg an antisemitic assault, wouldn’t it be relevant?

I agree entirely with Cath and I think her comments here deserve to be posts in themselves.

It is grinding to see people talk about the “court of law” as if it were this clear cut magical place where laws and crimes have clear edges and can be cut through with knives. There is absolutely nothing within a human court that is absolute.

So trying to avoid “prejudice” is, in itself, a fool’s errand.

It has been said before, but it bears repeating. In rape cases, a woman’s past sexual experiencies are brought up and considered “evidence” enough. So we have to ask, why isn’t a man’s “sexual preference” considered evidence when that preference consists of murder and violence? I repeat, THAT SEXUAL PREFERENCE CONSISTS OF MURDER AND VIOLENCE.

Forget about trying to get the “law” into a neat box, what ultimately matters is stopping violence in all its forms.

And please, no more obtuse extrapolations. “Just because someone likes stone skipping it doesn’t mean that they want to stone someone”. THIS IS PLAIN DUMB.

Just because we can’t draw a clear line between the good and the bad it doesn’t mean that we can’t tell the bad from the HORRIFICALLY VIOLENT BAD.

I think we can all agree that we want to stop the HORRIFICALLY VIOLENT BAD.

It wasn’t necessary for the case and with hindsight leaving it out was the right move.

I don’t see why people get into such a fuss about ‘violent misogynist porn’ though. I mean if you don’t like it, don’t watch it. There’s no evidence whatsoever to suggest more porn means more violence.

I get that the existence of some types of porn makes people uncomfortable, hell some of the stuff that gets made would make pretty much anybody uncomfortable, but legislation about what people fantasize over is a more repulsive concept than any amount of rape porn. If people want to see something, and that something can be produced for their viewing pleasure without committing a crime, then there is no legitimate basis for criminalising any of it.

Other reports indicate that Tabak accessed porn both before and after the murder, there’s even a suggestion he looked at it on the morning of the day he killed Joanna Yeates. This is from the Guardian:

“After his arrest in January, analysts delved deep into four computers Tabak had access to and found disturbing material. Police discovered images and films showing women bound, gagged, degraded and controlled by men. They also found a film in which two women were bundled into a car boot.

In legal argument not heard by the jury, Nigel Lickley QC, prosecuting, said Tabak clearly liked films showing women being held by the neck and claimed this ought to be spelled out in open court. “It might shed light on the need to hold a woman for long enough and the need to squeeze hard enough to take her life,” he said.

Detectives were particularly interested by three images of a slight, blonde-haired woman resembling Yeates who in one shot was pulling up her pink top to expose her breasts. When Yeates’s body was found three miles from her Bristol flat, her pink top was pulled up exposing her bra and part of one breast. Tabak’s DNA was found on her chest.

The pictures of the blonde woman in pink had a “resonance” with the way Yeates’s body was found, Lickley argued. Police believe Tabak may have pulled her shirt up either before or after death.

The time at which Tabak was looking at some of these images was also important, the police and prosecution believe. Police found that on the morning of the killing, 17 December last year, Tabak had accessed a pornographic website, although it is not clear if he viewed any films. He “certainly” had pornography on his mind, said Lickley.”

Yes, the reporting is confusing on that point. The clear references to viewing violent porn appears to be after the murder, when he was also researching unsolved murders, reading about the case, etc.

The references to porn before or on the day of he murder don’t seem to mention whether he was looking at specifically “violent” porn (Quote because it could be argued that porn that is about control or degradation is violent in non-physcal sense).

In the same way, the reports of his interest in escorts don’t seem to contain any specific interest in violence, though again, this could simply be an oversight, or the women concerned being untraceable or seeking an understandable privacy.

There is a lot to think about here. I do worry about a Colin Stagg type problem if evidence of interest in violent sexual fantasy is regularly permissable as evidence of murder. At the same time, Instinctively, it strikes me there is a line beyond which interest in such subjects somehow _should_ be regarded as suspect.

But how to draw it? I would hate to see the contents of Val McDermaid’s hard drive for example, while merely owning set of her Tony Hill novels would be ludicrous, but if not that, isn’t there a danger that it simply becomes a way of making sexual tastes that we find repulsive suspect, even if almost all people who have those tastes know perfectly well the diference between fantasy and reality, consent and non-consent. I mean, the existence of a thriving BDSM community might suggest that there are thousands of people out there for whom an interest in sexual violence is in no way a trigger for anything non-consensual. Should they be under greater suspicion than the rest of the community? or less perhaps, because they have integrated their sexuality happily and openly into their lives?

I still not getting why the influence of “porn” movies is unacceptably pernicious of wholesome personal relationships and civil society but violent video games with gun slaughter and gore all through are supposedly just great fun.

Travelling home from shopping by bus today, I caught sight of another bus with a strip poster all along the side of the top deck promoting the latest version of some war video game now released. Checking out the promotional trailer on YouTube confirmed what I had expected. The game is claimed to provide an “addictive experience” to “realistic” battle conditions.

For contrast, Japan has a long historic tradition of erotic graphic art – shunga – which has evolved in modern times to a flourishing industry making “adult” movies for home consumption and export. Porn movie stars in Japan are celebrated in the media. For all that, the overall crime rate in Japan is low, as is the incidence of violent sex crimes.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunga

Will prosecuting lawyers in trials in Britain for violent crimes be reporting that the accused were addicted to playing violent video games? I suspect not.

For we’ve enough halfwits out there who might actually believe the more ardent campaigners who tell us that violent porn *causes* violence against women.

In which case of course he wouldn’t have been guilty, would he? It would have been the porn responsible, he just being a hollow shell without motive himself.

A line of argument which, I agree, is absurd. But then that’s the problem Cath’s got here, isn’t it?

If a penchant for violent porn is evidence of a penchant for violence against women then maybe the porn evidence should have been given to the jury. But if violent porn itself causes violence against women then Tabak was under the effect of that violent porn and not fully responsible, was he?

And I’m pretty sure I could dig back into this intertubes thing and find Cath arguing the first of those premises, that violent porn in and of itself causes violence against women.

“Milton Diamond and Ayako Uchiyama observe a strong correlation between the dramatic rise of pornographic material in Japan from the 1970s onwards and a dramatic decrease in reported sexual violence, including crimes by juveniles and assaults on children under 13. They cite similar findings in Denmark and Germany. In their summary, they state that the concern that countries with widespread availability of sexually explicit material would suffer increased rates of sexual crimes was not validated and that the reduction of sexual crimes in Japan during that period may have been influenced by a variety of factors they had described in their study.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_Japan

Does anybody know if female murder rates have increased with the availability of violent porn?

Or put another way, what year are we saying is year zero in terms of access to this sort of stuff, and what is the pattern of murder rates during this period?

My guess is that there is little discernible effect (in terms of homicides) and, as Ben Goldacre says, there is a risk of drawing a target, post hoc, around a relatively uncommon event (porn related murder in the UK).

I don’t think you could, but who knows, I’ve been on the intertubes a while now so I could be wrong. I think you’re more likely to find me arguing that porn is of itself a specific form of violence against women, and in certain cases (such as this one) it can be a contributory factor in VAW.

So no, I don’t believe that a violent killer like Tabak is created through watching violent sadistic porn, but I do think there’s a case to be made that watching violent sadistic porn feeds into pre-existing misogyny and a desire to ‘do harm’ to women.

I don’t think you could, but who knows, I’ve been on the Intertubes a while now so I could be wrong. I think you’re more likely though to find me arguing that hardcore porn is of itself a specific form of violence against women, and that in certain cases (such as this one) it’s a contributory factor in VAW.

So no, I don’t believe that violent porn creates men like Tabak, but I do think that the consumption of violent sadistic porn can feed into a pre-existing misogyny and a desire to do harm to women.

I don’t think that all consumers of violent porn are potential killers, but I think there’s a case to be made that some violent sadistic killers like Tabak have had their misogyny confirmed, fed, and boosted by their consumption of hardcore porn.

27
Totally agree Tim (takes more medication), this is the real problem with arguing that this substance or that artefact drove a particular behaviour.
As someone up thread has mentioned, the porn was evidence of Tabak’s perverse fantasies, not the cause of his actions.

A complement means something that goes with (no, it’s different from a compliment). For example, if apples were a complement to female mak up (for whatever absurd reason) then we would find that as people consumed more apples then either the number of females wearing make up or the amount of make up females wore rising.

A subsititute is where something replaces the other. Continuing our absurdity, more apples would mean less make up being used (this is at least causally believable, more cider might indeed reduce the need for make up in certain social situations. Just as scrumpy bloooms might increase the need in other situations).

So, porn, complement or substitute for sexual violence? Does more porn lead to more s v or does it displace it?

As with almost everything in economics the correct answer is “it depends”. For I have absolutely no doubt that we could find, if we looked hard enough, someone who has been so desensitised by porn that women are regarded as mere playthings, of no more moment than what can be see through the viewfinder.

I similarly have no doubt that we can find someone whose urges have been released by porn, for whom porn is a substitute.

And there comes the “it depends”. For just about everything is true for some and what we actually want to know is, what is true for the majority? How does the general experience vary as a result of x? (or perhaps, in this context, “y”)

Sexual violence has been falling, dramatically, at the same time that availability of porn has been expanding. Sounds like, for most, that it’s a substitute really.

“but I do think that the consumption of violent sadistic porn can feed into a pre-existing misogyny and a desire to do harm to women. ”

Sure, so do I, see above, but then I’m similarly sure that recipes for Shepherds Pie can do that too. If not exactly SP, I’m sure we could find and example of a woman being killed because her killer thought she didn’t cook “y” the “right” way.

It’s the “pre-existing” that’s the problem, not the recipe or the porn.

“Shigeo Tokuda worked all his life for a travel agency until he retired when he was 60 years old. When he retired he realized that he had too much free time and decided to become an actor for the adult film industry. Being 73 years old he has appeared in more than 350 porn movies, starring along with porn actresses ranging from 20 years old to 70 years old. One in every five people in Japan is older than 60 years; porn with actors and actresses older than 60 years is now more popular than ever.”http://www.kirainet.com/english/japanese-porn-star/

On the popular theory that porn promotes sex crimes, presumably we should be seeing increasing numbers of septuagenarians in Japan on the rampage. Apparently, not so.

I think the judge was right to exclude the material, and that ‘s it’s one for discretion.

This category, for example:

>“After his arrest in January, analysts delved deep into four computers Tabak had access to and found disturbing material. Police discovered images and films showing women bound, gagged, degraded and controlled by men. They also found a film in which two women were bundled into a car boot.

Would cover Get Carter, Transporter (I ?) and a number of episodes of eg NCIS.

Sexual violence has been falling, dramatically, at the same time that availability of porn has been expanding. Sounds like, for most, that it’s a substitute really.

I`d like to see some evidence of this but I am not sure it would be possible to establish cause and effect anyway. Sexual crimes of this sort are, surpsingly , quite recent phenomenons, Jack the Ripper was a first at the time, so it is not inevitable. In fact the whole pattern of sex violence was only established in the late 19th century.It is not t, then a zero sum game .It is equally likely, I feel , that pornography is a substitute for sex and as such associates sex with the forbidden in a way that may become unhealthy, more so than if it is not
. Essentially what you create is a state of perpetual heightened adolescence . I am prepared to believe that this has a global effect on the likeliehood of a certain sort of crime . It may also be a developing situation . With the free availabilitity of pornography on the internet together with family and community atomisation my impression is that women do take their roles from pornography and the wider culture is effected .Consider the use of pole dancing in videos.

I would be happy to see out lives nudged away form these videos but as nearly all users do not mix reality and fantasy it constitutes little evidence of anything.

Are police, trial and press records sufficiently reliable to substantiate that claim?

Social conventions were very different in previous centuries.

The affair between Charles II and Nell Gwyn wasn’t secret.

Try the Wikipedia entry for the Hellfire Club:

“The Hellfire Club was a name for several exclusive clubs for high society rakes established in Britain and Ireland in the 18th century, and was more formally or cautiously known as the ‘Order of the Friars of St. Francis of Wycombe’. These clubs were rumoured to be the meeting places of ‘persons of quality’ who wished to take part in immoral acts, and the members were often very involved in politics. Neither the activities nor membership of the club are easy to ascertain . . . The most infamous club associated with the name was established in England by Sir Francis Dashwood, and met irregularly from around 1749 to around 1760, and possibly up until 1766.”

Sir Francis Dashwood was subsequently Chancellor of the Exechequer. Reputedly, other contemporary members of the club included John Wilkes, later Lord Mayor of Lord, and the Earl of Sandwich, hence the reported public exchange between them:

Sandwich: You sir, will certainly die on the gallows or of a social disease.
Wilkes: That depends, sir, upon whether I embrace your principles or your mistress.

Sir Francis Dashwood, as Chancellor, was responsible for introducing the infamous tax on tea which motivated the Boston Tea Party in 1773.

If the adventures and exploits of Sir Richard Burton (1821-90), the explorer and anthropologist, were fairly well documented by himself, mystery still surrounds the true authorship of the multi-volume My Secret Life by Walter – which some regard as a valuable insight into the social history of Victorian England:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Secret_Life_(erotica)

Sexual crimes of this sort are, surpsingly , quite recent phenomenons, Jack the Ripper was a first at the time, so it is not inevitable. In fact the whole pattern of sex violence was only established in the late 19th century.

What??

Of all the bone-headed things I’ve read in comments boxes over the years, this one’s up there with the best. Did you hear the story about the two men who raped a woman, mutilated her to stop her talking, and murdered her fiance? No? Well it’s by William Shakespeare.

Do you really think that sort of stuff didn’t used to go on? E.g. to women accused of witchcraft, over the centuries? Or female slaves, who were the property of their owners? You really think it’s a purely modern phenomenon?

As Larry suggests, Jack the Ripper almost certainly wasn’t the first serial killer. Just the first one to become a media sensation.

I’ll add my own vote to those who are saying the judge was right not to bring the porn into it. Watching violent porn is pretty reprehensible, and certainly not my idea of fun, but it doesn’t necessarily make somebody a murderer.

What happened in the times, not that long ago, before movies, TV and video?

In Britain, universal primary education up to 12 didn’t become compulsory until 1880. Tens of thousands of teenage girls entered domestic service because that offered the security of lodgings and board but at low pay and with few days off.

In domestic service, there were correspondingly few opportunities for any kind of regular social life beyond the ambit of the employer’s household and the young males therein or those who called socially or for trade reasons. That was the situation that Walter – and others – exploited: see Frank Harris: My Life and Loves (1922). As the girls progressed through their teen years, they must have wondered about prospects and how to make the most of their days off work. By 1900, average life expectancy at birth had increase to 50 years from 40 years a century earlier.

DH Lawrence described the novel: Jane Eyre (1847), by Charlotte Bronte as the most pornographic book in the English language. Charlotte Bronte died in 1855 aged 38.

No, the Judge was right. To have admitted evidence of his sexual proclivities would have been volatile prejudice in the minds of the Jury and not properly probative. Luckily Tabak was convicted on the evidence.

It has been said before, but it bears repeating. In rape cases, a woman’s past sexual experiencies are brought up and considered “evidence” enough.

Are you familiar with section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999?

On the more general point – the BBC story is pretty clear that the internet usage that the prosecution wanted to introduce into evidence was several weeks after the killing.

The “fact that Yeates’s body was posed in a way that resembled one of the images from the porn he had accessed”, far from being “damning evidence re intent” is in fact totally irrelevant. It would only be relevant if the pose was from images that Tabak had seen before the killing; the argument for relevance seems to be that he was copying what he’d seen. If he hadn’t seen the image until after the killing, he couldn’t have been copying the pose.

Again, if the BBC story is correct, the resemblance in poses was pretty limited: “some recovered images showed a petite blonde woman with her top pulled up in a similar fashion to how Miss Yeates was found.”

As for the argument that he derived sexual pleasure from watching violent porn; how is that relevant? For it to be relevant you’d have to show that men (and presumably women) get the same sexual pleasure from doing an act that they gain from watching it; but the existence of voyeurs rather devalues that argument.

Sexual crimes of this sort are, surpsingly , quite recent phenomenons, Jack the Ripper was a first at the time, so it is not inevitable. In fact the whole pattern of sex violence was only established in the late 19th century.

So …. not read a whole lot of Sade then? Gilles de Montmorency-Laval, Baron de Rais, was hanged for the serial killing and rape of children, perhaps into the hundreds, in 1440.

It is equally likely, I feel , that pornography is a substitute for sex and as such associates sex with the forbidden in a way that may become unhealthy, more so than if it is not

We can measure this in various ways. One obvious way is by the type of rape. When I was a lad most rapes were perfectly vanilla. Straight forward vaginal intercourse. Now more often than not they are oral and anal as well. I would think that was an impact of pornography wouldn’t you?

Maltese Cross

The fact he found his current partners through the Guardian dating website was brought up in court. How was that relevant?

One obvious way is by the type of rape. When I was a lad most rapes were perfectly vanilla. Straight forward vaginal intercourse. Now more often than not they are oral and anal as well. I would think that was an impact of pornography wouldn’t you?

Not necessarily – or at least not directly. I would hazard a guess that consensual oral and anal sex are more prevalent generally nowadays; in which case (if true – the plural of anecdote isn’t data) it’s a reflection of changing sexual mores as much as anything else. It’s true, of course, that porn has probably had an effect on those mores, but that’s not a direct effect.

Bob B and others, I did not mean to suggest that crimes with a sexual component were invented in the Victorian period ,yes I have browsed the deeply tedious Marquis De Sade or the Earl Of Rochester, Restoration Drama and much more. I was thinking when I wrote of Colin Wilson`s history of Crime and the elements of fantasy violence and anonymity present from the pre romantic through the Victorian period onwards
If you read, for example, Boswell`s diaries,you see an entirely different attitude to sex which is more along the lines of our other appetites and enjoyed in a relatively straightforward way.
In the Victorian period which is the first age of pornography, attitudes to sex seem, to me to change to one in which the idea of the unobtainable instead of disappearing as we mature becomes fetishised and accentuated to a point where real sex becomes, conceivably a poor substitute. At that time the modern sex crime is born. It is also the first age of mass produced pornography.
Even if this is a difficult statement to substantiate it is quite clear form the pornopgraphy of the period, and what we know about sex in the past, that its place in culture is not fixed and the crimes that take place are not the same.

If you take the Worstall theory then we all have genetically programmed potential for violent rape which pornography may ameliorate. I am suggesting that the relationship between culture and and desire is more complex than that and the rise of pornography and the “modern” sex crime are contemporary
Bottom line – I see endless pornography and feel uncomfortable about what that does in our culture Tim think oh goody thats few rapes replaced with masturbation. …

I think Tim Worstall is wrong ( Coo I felt the thrill of the forbidden writing that … )

Not necessarily – or at least not directly. I would hazard a guess that consensual oral and anal sex are more prevalent generally nowadays; in which case (if true – the plural of anecdote isn’t data) it’s a reflection of changing sexual mores as much as anything else. It’s true, of course, that porn has probably had an effect on those mores, but that’s not a direct effect.

Yeah but how do people even know how to do them? It sounds stupid, but it isn’t. There is an auto-biography by a Gay British man who is introduced to oral sex way back when and when he tries it out on his semi-steady boy friend, said boy friend is really angry. Never having even thought of it before. I would think there is no denying that porn is directly responsible.

That is kind of a direct result. Not causal in perhaps the legal sense.

And your cliche about anecdotes is irrelevant as neither of us has recounted any.

However, too much of the legal process seems like a game lawyers play which they designed to give each other a fair chance. Not something that serves the public. I think any evidence that could help explain the circumstances is worth telling the jury. As in France. It may prejudice the defence’s chance of getting his client off and be frightfully unsporting, but I don’t think juries are so dumb. I think they understand context and contemporary mores perfectly well. Nor do I think there is much wrong with being a tad prejudiced against murderers.

Bob B and others, I did not mean to suggest that crimes with a sexual component were invented in the Victorian period .The Earl Of Rochester, Restoration Drama yes yes I know .. I was thinking of Colin Wilson`s history of Crime and the elements of fantasy violence and anonymity present from the pre romantic through the Victorian period onwards
If you read, for example, Boswell`s diaries,you see an entirely different attitude to sex which is more along the lines of our other appetites and enjoyed in a relatively straightforward way.
In the Victorian period attitudes to sex change to one in which the idea of the unobtainable becomes fetishised and accentuated to a point where real sex becomes, conceivably a poor substitute. At that time the modern sex crime is born. It is also the first age of mass produced pornography.
It is, at least, quite clear form the pornography of the period that sex in culture is not fixed and the crimes that take place are not the same.
If you take the Worstall theory then we all have genetically programmed potential for violent rape which pornography may ameliorate. I am suggesting that the relationship between culture and and desire is more complex than that and the rise of pornography and the “modern” sex crime are contemporary
Bottom line – I see endless pornography and feel uncomfortable about what that does in our culture Tim think oh goody thats few rapes replaced with masturbation. …
I think Tim Worstall is wrong ( Coo I felt the thrill of the forbidden writing that … )

“Bottom line – I see endless pornography and feel uncomfortable about what that does in our culture Tim think oh goody thats few rapes replaced with masturbation. …
I think Tim Worstall is wrong ( Coo I felt the thrill of the forbidden writing that … )”

I could indeed be wrong. I often am but I’m not convinced that I am here.

Because we do have this one great big empirical fact that we’ve got to explain.

Over the past few decades huge efforts (not entirely successful) have been made to increase the reporting rate for rape, to reduce the shame or opprobrium that society imposes on the victim. Police forces are a hell of a lot better than they were, rape counselling, rape kits, etc.

We’ve also expanded the definition of rape from what Whoopi called “rape rape” to what earlier generations wouldn’t have considered rape at all.

We would expect, as a result of these (entirely welcome and just) changes the incidence of reported rape to have risen over these decades then.

But it hasn’t. And there have been various attempts to explain why the reported incidence of rape has fallen even as we would expect it to have risen. Even to the point that one scholar tracked the roll out of broadband across US states and observed that rape numbers seemed to fall as broadband was rolled out. They rose, as we would expect from the above, in places where broadband had not arrived but fell where it did.

We could characterise this as, if you want, men who wank themselves into a stupour are less likely to rape than those who don’t. But whatever causality we want to plump for, we do have to explain why reported rapes are falling at the same time as we would expect them to be rising. Something that is correlated with the roll out of boradband.

51
There are now so many programmes on main stream t.v. channels discussing sexual behaviours and giving explicit instructions on how to perform said behaviours, there is no necessity to purchase porn to learn.
There is a psychological theory called ‘role-modelling’, which suggests that we model behaviours which we see, this may be directly or via a certain medium, but we only do so if it rewards us or does not punish.
I would imagine that those who consume a particular sort of porn are rewarded by it and perhaps suggest to their partners certain sexual acts based on what they see. But the majority know that rape and murder are wrong just as they are aware that when viewing a violent film which contains extreme violence, that is also wrong.
If we look at the fairy tales we tell our children, some are extremely violent and perverse, I doubt if anybody would suggest that they have a direct or indirect effect upon children who subsequently grow-up to be violent and perverse.

You’re missing the point. The difference between anal sex and anal rape is consent. If anal sex has become more prevalent over a period, it would be surprising if the rate of anal rape didn’t become more prevalent – not as a direct result of porn, (even if porn has contributed to the prevalence of anal sex), but simply because more people are doing anal sex.

Neither of us has presented data on changes in rates of oral and anal rape. You have expressed the view that the rates have increased. If, as I suspect, your belief is founded on what you read in the newspapers, which are a series of anecdotes, you are equating anecdote with data; that is, unless you really think that newspapers report on a representative sample of rapes? I would have thought that there would have been rather more self-censorship by newspapers the further back you go in time, so even steady levels of anal v vaginal v oral rape would be reported differently over time.

The legal process is a game lawyers play to ensure that the accused gets a fair crack of the whip. Too may people still think that “he’s been accused” is a fair reason to reach the conclusion “he’s guilty”.

@46 Rudolf: “No, the Judge was right. To have admitted evidence of his sexual proclivities would have been volatile prejudice in the minds of the Jury and not properly probative. Luckily Tabak was convicted on the evidence.”

The Tabak trial was not a robust basis for setting precedents on the admissibility of evidence from his computer of a personal interest in porn. Tabak had already confessed to killing Jo Yeates and admitted manslaughter. The trial was about whether he was guilty of murder. In the event, he was convicted of that.

In the context, the judge was being commendably prudent in excluding evidence of Tabak’s interest in violent porn which would have been an obvious basis on which an appeal could be launched in the event of a murder verdict. I find it illuminating though that Tabak was accused in the trial of being “clever and manipulative”, as though such personal attributes necessarily imply criminal intent. How many successful entrepreneurs and investment bankers might also fall into that same category?

Note that evidence on personal computers of any interest in jihadism and terrorist training manuals is routinely cited as compelling evidence in trials for terrorist offences – hence the hiatus at Nottingham University where a post-grad student had downloaded onto his computer the al-Qaeda training manual for a research project. We seem to have reached the stage where any computer records showing interest in jihadism is taken to be an absolute crime for which there is no valid defence in a trial – a situation similar to that of possessing child pornography.

I can recall from about a decade and several computers ago with apprehension now how I had collected on my HD websites about the construction of nuclear weapons just out of curiosity. But why is an interest in violent video games not taken to be a motivating factor for those charged with violent crimes?

A quote from page five:
“Surprisingly, the commingling of pain and sex, the very core of Kink’s business, has long been unnerving within even the porn industry itself. For decades, the conventional wisdom among mainstream porn producers was that mixing the two, specifically showing bondage and intercourse simultaneously, might invite an obscenity prosecution. “People assumed that it was in the federal obscenity statute, that there was some specification about bondage and penetration,” says I. S. Levine, a k a Ernest Greene, longtime video director and screenwriter in the San Fernando Valley. “It just became one of these things everybody believed.” Bondage, he adds, was typically only shown in films without any visible penetration and sometimes hardly any nudity. Even Kink waited until 2005 before daring to show a man having intercourse with a bound woman.”

Immediately prior to that paragraph, the NYT reported: “…as in real-life B.D.S.M. play, everything is negotiated in advance and rooted in a certain etiquette and trust — that everyone is friends. The company actually requires that each model be shown smiling during the segments.”

Tabak is accused of viewing material on the “Sex and Submision” site that is part of Kink.com, a company that produces safe, sane and consensual BDSM porn.

@56. Bob B: “I find it illuminating though that Tabak was accused in the trial of being “clever and manipulative…””

Has a judge ever proclaimed that the accused was “stupid and manipulative”? “Clever and manipulative” is just a cliche.

If criminals were really clever/when criminals are really clever, they do not get caught to receive a lecture from the judge. We have to presume that they eventually receive the words of St Peter (or faith equivalent or conscience): “You thought that you were clever, but…”

@ Charlieman: “Has a judge ever proclaimed that the accused was ‘stupid and manipulative’? ‘Clever and manipulative’ is just a cliche.”

IMO the really challenging question is how many “clever and manipulative” types don’t end up as potential criminals on trial but make successful business, civil service or political careers instead – just as we really need to know how many consumers of (? BDSM) porn don’t appear in the dock for violent sex crimes.

The evidence from Japan @26, @28 and @37 doesn’t support claims about links between porn and sex crimes. We don’t find lots of septuagenarians on the prowl looking for prospective rape victims after watching a few adult videos for the pensioner market.

It looks to as though the police and prosecuting authorities could do with some instruction classes in logic and scientific method. Try the claim about a neutral hypothesis: It’s unlucky to walk under ladders. How can we tell whether that is true or not?

“The company actually requires that each model be shown smiling during the segments.”

That’s how we know the smiles are lies. That this requirement doesn’t seem cover-your-ass forced but is accepted by you and so many pornsick men as proof that women really love being not just sexual sadism but performing their degradation for men they don’t know to masturbate to frightens me so very much.

My rapist made me smile for pictures too. It was his insurance that if I ever told anyone he would show them pictures of me naked, bleeding and smiling.

Llea: “My rapist made me smile for pictures too. It was his insurance that if I ever told anyone he would show them pictures of me naked, bleeding and smiling.”

Sorry to learn of your experience but extrapolating from single examples is apt to lead to misleading general conclusions. Very likely that Tabak drank coffeee, occasionally took Aspirin, and watched mainstream TV besides taking an interest in porn. How can we know which, if any, were significant causal factors?

> The evidence from Japan @26, @28 and @37 doesn’t support claims about links between porn and sex crimes. We don’t find lots of septuagenarians on the prowl looking for prospective rape victims after watching a few adult videos for the pensioner market.

Is it just me, or is the Japanese analogy rather poor Bob.

The sexual drives of those 70+ are considerably weaker than young males.
As is their physical strength, etc.

Unless you can point to evidence to the scale of rapes by 70+ Japanese (before or since rising porn) – their porn seems irrelevant to a thread about rape.

Just @63: “Is it just me, or is the Japanese analogy rather poor Bob.”

Try the quote and relating citations @28.

The facts are that Japan has a long historic tradition of erotic graphic art (shunga) yet the crime rate is low there and so is the incidence of rape. There is no evident direct link between the national consumption of porn and the national incidence of violent sex crimes.

I recall visiting Copenhagen in the early 1980s and being amazed at the number of sex shops in the central shopping area openly displaying their wares but the incidence of rape is significantly higher in Britain than in Denmark. In fact, by reports, we have one of the highest incidences of rape in Europe.

There is much mythology and emotion but little science behind those strident claims that porn leads to sex crimes.

As said, to establish any significant connection, we really need to know how many consumers of porn don’t go on to perpetrate sex crimes. Come to that, we lack clear profiles of the porn that is supposed to motivate rapists.

Much was claimed about the dire consequences that would follow the acquittal in 1960 of Penguin Books for publishing DH Lawrence’s Lady Chaterley’s Lover (1928). As the prosecuting attorney said at the trial: Would you want you wife or servant to read this book? OTOH we have from Dominique Aury – otherwise Pauline Réage, the author of L’Histoire d’O (1954), the infamous BDSM novel – the insight that “women are as immoral as men.” Good high street book stores stock: The Story of O in their fiction sections. Does that count as porn liable to motivate violent sex crimes? There’s a 10-part video serialisation available on DVD which was broadcast on TV in Denmark.http://www.bookforum.com/archive/sum_06/bentley.html

Yes, pornography does lead to an increase in sexual violence. There’s lots of research to prove it.

And the reason why it isn’t more “obvious” is because more access to violent porn leads to more acceptance of sexual violence. Which means that most crimes go unacknowledged as crimes, even by the victims. Sexual violence is therefore seen as normal, by perpetrators, by society and by victims.

And the proof of that is every single comment thread on the internet asking “where is the violence in porn?” when porn is in and of itself violence.

@65: “Yes, pornography does lead to an increase in sexual violence. There’s lots of research to prove it.”

Let’s have the citations, please, so we can evaluate the quality of the research to make sure that it’s statistically robust and not just dogmatic assertion.

It’s still necessary to account for the conjunction of a historic tradition of erotic graphic art in Japan and the flourishing current industry producing porn there with the low incidence of violent sex crimes in Japan. Why don’t the many sex shops in the central shopping areas of Copenhagen lead to pervasive sex crime?

“And the proof of that is every single comment thread on the internet asking “where is the violence in porn?” when porn is in and of itself violence.”

But whatever causality we want to plump for, we do have to explain why reported rapes are falling at the same time as we would expect them to be rising. Something that is correlated with the roll out of boradband.

I like the porn argument, but I notice that along with broadband, at about the same time, people started rolling out DNA profiling. Testing your DNA sort of takes the point out of being a rapist, no?

10:59 am, October 30, 201154. steveb

There are now so many programmes on main stream t.v. channels discussing sexual behaviours and giving explicit instructions on how to perform said behaviours, there is no necessity to purchase porn to learn.

Sure. Porn is now mainstream. A stag party film in the 1950s wouldn’t rate as a MTV video clip these days. Acts that were hardly even heard of are now common prime time TV programme jokes.

But the majority know that rape and murder are wrong just as they are aware that when viewing a violent film which contains extreme violence, that is also wrong.

I think there is an argument that TV has lead to an explosion in murders – presumably because people see so many of them they are de-sensitised. But otherwise I would agree.

Robin Levett

You’re missing the point. The difference between anal sex and anal rape is consent. If anal sex has become more prevalent over a period, it would be surprising if the rate of anal rape didn’t become more prevalent – not as a direct result of porn, (even if porn has contributed to the prevalence of anal sex), but simply because more people are doing anal sex.

No I am not. Because anal sex would not have become more common if it was not brought to the attention of people who would otherwise not even have heard of it and who then decided to try it out. Porn has mainstreamed anal sex. Thus, as everyone is doing it, it is no surprise that rapists are too.

Neither of us has presented data on changes in rates of oral and anal rape. You have expressed the view that the rates have increased. If, as I suspect, your belief is founded on what you read in the newspapers, which are a series of anecdotes, you are equating anecdote with data; that is, unless you really think that newspapers report on a representative sample of rapes? I would have thought that there would have been rather more self-censorship by newspapers the further back you go in time, so even steady levels of anal v vaginal v oral rape would be reported differently over time.

But I am not basing it on what I read in newspapers so it remains irrelevant.

Injuries inflicted on women in the course of anal rape are hard to disguise. The law has traditionally used one or other euphemism to describe those injuries and make sure the convicted rapist gets a tougher sentence. Thus we have no real problem with reporting – you can’t hide those sort of injuries – and we have a fairly consistent description of the acts. They have gone up. Massively.

The legal process is a game lawyers play to ensure that the accused gets a fair crack of the whip. Too may people still think that “he’s been accused” is a fair reason to reach the conclusion “he’s guilty”.

No it isn’t. It is a game played for the benefit of the lawyers and no one else. The whole system is designed by lawyers for their own good. That is why no lawyer ever has to take responsibility for a wrongful verdict – the system is designed so the blame should never ever fall on the lawyers or judge. They do this in the name of protecting the accused, and if the accused is guilty, it would certainly help. But mainly it is to protect themselves. The lawyers can sleep well at night because nothing is ever their fault. I am dubious that any jury thinks that because someone is accused they are guilty.

No I am not. Because anal sex would not have become more common if it was not brought to the attention of people who would otherwise not even have heard of it and who then decided to try it out. Porn has mainstreamed anal sex. Thus, as everyone is doing it, it is no surprise that rapists are too.

That is indeed my point; except that I do not agree that porn is solely responsible for mainstreaming anal and oral sex.

But I am not basing it on what I read in newspapers so it remains irrelevant.

Injuries inflicted on women in the course of anal rape are hard to disguise. The law has traditionally used one or other euphemism to describe those injuries and make sure the convicted rapist gets a tougher sentence. Thus we have no real problem with reporting – you can’t hide those sort of injuries – and we have a fairly consistent description of the acts. They have gone up. Massively.

Since you’re not relying upon newspapers for this information, presumably you have seen a study that says this. Could you let me have a cite? Or is this something that “everyone knows”?

I am dubious that any jury thinks that because someone is accused they are guilty.

Bear in mind that juries are drawn from the population in general; do you really want to stand by that comment – substituting juryman for jury, of course, since that is the context? Can I suggest that you look at the thread a few months ago on rape, and the suggestion that because only a small minority of allegations were categorised as “false” in the Home Office definition that meant that the vast majority of rape acquittals were unsafe (paraphrasing).

No, the possession of fantasy images of sexual violence was not relevant to the case. How could it be? Where is the evidence that the possession of such images makes a person more likely to commit a violent crime? This is nothing but prejudice.

Are murderers and rapists more likely to use violent porn than the rest of the population? As far as I know, the answer is ‘no’, since they are in fact quite likely to be sexually repressed, often due to a strict religious upbringing. Perhaps juries should be warned if a defendant has had a strict religious upbringing and / or been abused as a child. Statistically speaking, this is more likely to be relevant than whether they possess fantasy images of sexual violence.

A very large number of adults enjoy consensual bondage and sado-masochism as part of a healthy, albeit non-normative, sex life. Most enjoy using porn from time to time and almost none go on to commit violent crimes. In fact, attitudes towards consent are often MUCH healthier in the BDSM community than in society at large.

Many BDSM practitioners are women, including ardent feminists, who do not want society to tell them what they, ‘as women’, should enjoy sexually. They are expressing their own sexual freedom, including the freedom to consent to pain or submissive sexual games, if that’s what they find arousing. Possession of ‘extreme’ images has already been criminalised by the last government, despite no evidence that such images are harmful.

Meanwhile, murder and rape occur all the time in films, on TV and of course in the real world. Sexual violence was not invented by the internet or encouraged by the availability of pornography. It is as old as humanity and all the evidence suggests that it is more prevalent in societies which are more patriarchal and less egalitarian.

I’ve never quite understood what’s meant by “sexual repression” – do you mean that people who repress their sexual urges, like nuns, are particularly prone to sexual violence? And as for misogyny, I’ve never grasped how this could possibly explain male-on-male rape, which does occur quite a lot, you know.